The room where it happens: How number 10 lost control

'The Room Where It Happens': aka the Thatcher Room. Despite having a ground-floor office, Starmer prefers to work from the first floor room in Downing Street.

There are probably few things more uncomfortable for a man like Starmer than a whipping operation. It is a mad, bad and difficult part of the Westminster gig. At times it is brutally impersonal towards MPs with little regard for their own sentiments, and other times incredibly personal in ameliorating revolt. Unfortunately for the PM, this contrasts his inherently austere approach to leadership. He is known to dislike the highly personal nature of political leadership and emotional complexity and openness that is demanded of anyone in the top job. He just wants to “get on with it”. 

But that may grind to a halt soon. In attempting to pass a raft of benefit reforms, the Prime Minister faces an eye watering rebellion of over 100 of his own MPs — so much so that he could crush his parliamentary majority of 174 (now 166) and lose the vote. As an army of Parliamentary Private Secretaries, Whips, Number 10 officials and Cabinet ministers attempt to canvass backbench support, many are taking the opportunity to actively rake the Prime Minister’s reputation, leadership, and power over the coals. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to assume that Starmer’s attempts to reform benefits are simply pitting a right-ward marching Prime Minister against a left-leaning parliamentary party. Indeed, Starmer’s political decision to press on with reform may not be the right course of action. 

But a deeper understanding of Number 10’s refusal to back down illustrates that their position isn’t ignorant. Instead, the divisions within the party, and attempts to resolve them, run much deeper.

In one of the first Cabinet meetings after the election, Morgan McSweeney addressed the top Labour brass with a key message. Don’t “attempt to change the world”. Instead focus on key goals. It was a remarkably grounded and astute remark from a Head of Political Strategy who had just won a landslide. McSweeney reportedly pointed to the Labour governments of 1945-1951, 1964-1970 and 1970-1979, which had delivered material change for voters, but in attempting to be a jack of all trades became a master of none, and lost power. 

The message finds its roots in a key tenet of Starmer’s government — take advice from those who have done it before. It is the meritocratic mantra. Whilst ideologically it is no secret that Starmer lies close to the New Labour project, he has also taken the old grandees to the heart of his government.

The omnipotent Lord Mandelson is now a key tenet of foreign policy as UK Ambassador to the US. He was responsible for masterminding the 1987 and 1997 general election campaigns, as well as bringing order to Downing Street in the dying days of Brown’s tenure. And Jonathan Powell, the curly haired maestro of noughties Downing Street and Blair’s longest serving advisor (as his Chief of Staff) is now National Security Advisor. Even Blair and Starmer are close- the pair reportedly text often. Since their fall from power in 2007, out of the Blairite camp have come multiple key messages to succeed in government. Most importantly, don’t save political capital. Use it. 

This is key to understanding the sentiment within Number 10. Despite their soaring popularity at the time, almost all senior New Labour operatives regret the hesitancy that plagued the party during their first term in government, rooted in fears of using up political capital. Powell and Blair have both advocated privately and publicly for governments to act expediently, instead of saving their popularity for a time of crisis. 

Undoubtedly, cutting benefits is anathema to a majority of the Labour movement — and justifiably so. But it is a key example of Starmer taking the New Labour lessons, and running into the fire.

Just as there is a cause for striking down the reforms, there is a cause for reform. The welfare budget is set to balloon by over 60 billion by the end of the decade, putting any government in a fiscal headlock. Proponents of benefit reform argue in very Coalition-style fashion, that the government is sitting on a time bomb which will inevitably need a painful shakedown. And in interpolating the lessons of New Labour, Number 10 is acting off of the idea that delaying a solution would only exacerbate the problem, and overshadow any political gains made by delaying turmoil and appearing more adept at governing earlier on in power. 

But the government's split with the parliamentary party leave it aligned with think-tanks, and represent an interesting Whitehall schism. Many left-leaning organisations, such as the Social Market Foundation, are supporters of significant welfare reform such as downgrading the triple-lock to a double lock. They argue, similar to the government, that inactivity on issues of expenditure will only invite problems. But for the PLP, raw politics is naturally a significant factor. Ideology, popularity and electoral viability are choices faced by MPs and SpAds that are not factors for think tanks. But the prevalence of the ideas within Downing Street raises the question of “government by think tank”, as an ideologically insecure political party attempts to outsource its political thinking.

Yet the policy splits within Downing Street and the widening schism with the backbenches illustrates a wider problem with the government’s Policy Unit. Starmer’s delegated Head of Policy is Dr Stuart Ingham, his longest serving aide. Joining the PM  in December 2016, Ingham has seen Starmer rise from party hopeful to embattled leader, to victorious Prime Minister, to hated statesman. He is a notably inconspicuous figure, never granting media interviews. Yet he shares responsibility for the Unit with career civil servant Olaf Henricson-Bell, who cut his teeth working on the FCDO’s Europe strategy and Treasury communications. 

And if the split between policy academic and career civil servant wasn’t enough, the Director of “Policy Delivery and Innovation” is Liz Lloyd. Formerly Deputy Chief of Staff from 2005-2007, Lloyd is unashamedly Blairite in her outlook, entertaining a stellar City career before returning to Downing Street in autumn 2024. There are now noted tensions within the Policy Unit.

Typically, the Number 10 Policy Unit has been a fertile ground for political big-hitters. Out of the strong came forth sweetness, and out of the Number 10 Policy Unit came heavyweights David Miliband, Andrew Adonis and even Jacinda Arden. The welfare reforms thus drive the imperative — Number 10 must establish which heavy-hitter is taking a lead on policy. Ingham and Lloyd are different in their outlooks. The former is a soft-left academic, whilst the latter is a pragmatically focused centrist. Few deny that policy engagement within the government is weak, and the differing approaches and a threefold split of authority between Bell, Ingham and Lloyd has likely led to awkward public exposures — such as the benefits reform. 

From a vantage point, there is little doubt a fourth actor is present. Morgan McSweeney has long advocated for policies that radically bring real-terms change to voters above all else. He appears to be less keen on ideology and more so governed by a broad set of principles from which policies are a means to an end. After all, apparently the highest praise that an idea can receive is “Morgan loves it”.

Yet to complicate matters further, McSweeney and his (political) deputy, Claire Reynolds, are the target of significant, direct, backbench anger. Significant swathes of Labour MPs blame them for the rough style of politics that has beset No. 10, and the “bunker mentality” that sees Starmer rarely pass through the Westminster Estate or engage with his MPs. Moreover Reynolds has been a target of frustration within Downing Street as well. As Political Director, her responsibility to liaise with MPs has left whips blindsided by the scale of the rebellion. Whilst she did address the PLP in the wake of the local elections, the resolve to simply go “further and faster” rather than change tack has failed to whet the appetite of those fearing a date with defeat on 2029’s polling day. 

Indeed the anger placed at Downing Street is not unlike the very anger that saw Sue Gray ejected from Number 10. The irony of McSweeney being accused of a “bunker mentality”, a “boys club” and failing to understand the reality of politics leaves Downing Street in a situation precariously close to the one faced in October of last year, one with a dangerous precedent. Ironically, a precedent that McSweeney himself set. However, his situation is unique: since the Irishman took charge in October 2024, Downing Street has been plagued by allegations that Starmer “isn’t driving the train”, instead folly to the manoeuvrings of his top aides. So much so, that one senior MP decried calls for McSweeney’s resignation by saying that “without Morgan, their is no Keir”. 

There has been significant discussion over a reshuffle — first when McSweeney took office, then after Starmer’s ‘Plan for Change’ speech, and then following the local elections. Yet for many on the backbenches, the question remains as to whether any genuine strategy shift can be achieved without a significant personnel overhaul in the inner circle of a notably private Prime Minister. 

The benefits saga should not be a weak point for the government. The Secretary of State in charge, Liz Kendall, is a close ally of Number 10: McSweeney even ran her (disastrous) 2015 leadership campaign. Moreover, the main minister caught in the crossfire is the starlet Torsten Bell, a 2024-intake MP who was previously Head of Policy for Ed Miliband and a think tank CEO. He serves as Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Undersecretary of State for Pensions, making him the only minister to serve dually in the DWP and the Treasury — a testament to his good relations with Downing Street. He is also the identical twin of Olaf Henricson-Bell, an aforementioned Director of No 10’s Policy Unit. 

Whatever the intentions, blindspots or reservations that Downing Street has, Number 10 faces its first proper governing challenge. A combination of Starmer’s impersonal style of leadership, using Labour’s past governing lessons for posterity’s sake, and policy/personnel schisms in Number 10 leave the PM embattled against his own party. And from the days of Corbyn, Starmer knows all too well how that can grind down the dearest leader. After all, he was the future once.

Image: Number 10/Flickr